"I do not know any politicians."
Translation:Én nem ismerek politikusokat.
What about "Nem ismerek semmilyen politikusokat"
- Don't want to report if it's wrong.
@Haroldnek: that would mean something like "Although I know some politicians, none of them are "not memorable" If you use "semmilyen", you describe the lack of their memorable qualities, but not deny that you know some politicians.
@Roberto343666: "semmit" means "nothing" in an accusative case, reference for inanimate objects and things. For persons you'd use "senkit", but that means "no one", therefore also cannot be used here.
I was wondering the same, as any is not translated in the given answer. I answered "nem ismerek semmit politikusokat", and it was wrong.
tudni and ismerni are not interchangeable and, in fact, I think usually only one of them is appropriate at a time. tudni is to have knowledge or ability of something, like knowing how to swim or knowing where someone's house is. Whereas ismerni is to be familiar with somebody or something (usually people, but not always)
So, for example, maybe you "ismerem" your neighbor because you see him walking by and say hi every day, but you don't "tudom" his name; or you "ismerem" that restaurant that you ate at last night, but you don't "tudom" where exactly it is.
This is such a good question!
Well, fiirst of all note that the nominative plural & the accusative singular are usually identical except for the very last sound (which is k or t, respectively.) (There are some exceptions, such as (szó, szavak, szót) or (oldal, oldalak, oldalt), but you get the point.)
Now if there is a connecting vowel (whatever its name is), there are two options: it can be either open: a/e or mid: o/ö/e (this last "E" was historically pronounced like a short "E". These "closed E's"might be used some dialectical speakers, but it's extremely rare. It's usually written as "Ë", by the way, not like it's any important.) Examples:
ablak ablakok ablakot (window)
kép képek képet (image, picture)
ördög ördögök ördögöt (devil)
könyv könyvek könyvet (book)
hal halak halat (fish)
Now, the trick is that in the plural accusative the last connecting vowel is always open (a/e.) So politikus takes a mid-vowel (like most of recent loanwords), you get politikusok, but that must have -at in the end. So politikusokat!
http://www.nyest.hu/hirek/mit-szeretsz-jobban-az-alpokat-vagy-az-alpokot It discusses this whole topic to talk about the conjugation of "Alpok" (Alps) later. Alpok is historically plural, but some speakers use it as singular.
Köszönöm szépen! Wow, that is very helpful! I think I missed the thing about plural accusative having to be open. Thanks again!
Now, just to throw in one more twist: "politikus" can be both a noun and an adjective. If you use it as a noun, the plural will be
"politikusok" - politicians.
If you use it as an adjective, the plural will be
"politikusak" - political(s).
"These politicians are very political." - "Ezek a politikusok nagyon politikusak."
Maybe Hungarian does not use "politikus" as an adjective very often, but here is another example: "okos" - smart, clever.
"The smart ones say very smart (things)" - "Az okosok nagyon okosakat mondanak".
It seems to me that noun/adjective combos ending in "-s" can behave like this. Not sure though how wide-spread this phenomenon is. Certainly not all can be used like this. But here are a few more:
vörösök - vörösek
pirosok - pirosak
laikusok - laikusak
gyorsok - gyorsak
Maybe it has to do with adjectives that came to be used as nouns.
But in any case, the accusative of any plural word can only be "-at"/"-et". So,
politikusokat - politikusakat
vörösöket - vöröseket